Re: Default Judgement Against Securitas Security Services

Re opened for update

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM HITTING 'REPLY WITH QUOTE' IF YOU ARE SIMPLY REPLYING TO THE LAST POST IN A THREAD..JUST TYPE!!
it makes a thread twice as long to scroll through..save data download times and costs

If you want advice please PM me a link to your thread. PM advice is not allowed!!

I hate bailiffs. Let me know if you have had a problem with them. I am sure i could upset them.
I now have experience with Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited and won in court against them 01/2018

However as usual their legal team has been as quiet as a sleeping baby. Their legal rep has so far not replied to emails sent to them.

With the experience we have had with this company. It is not surprising people have walked from their jobs.
If not walked then the managers have dismissed them under what ever excuse they can find under the sun.

When you talk to their head office then they have different ideas about what should and shouldn't happen.
You would have thought that at least their legal team had something better to do than this.

Since they are a large firm, using professional legal representation, with a background of seeking a set-aside of a default judgment, there is only so much latitude they'll get for trying to state “oops, there was a procedural slip in our dealing with this, it is only just that we get another chance.

They got their chance with the set-aside. If they then clanger’d again, that is their look out, even more so given they had the choice of getting professional help, and were legally represented at the hearing.

“Never say never”, but I can’t see how they can re-open this. The courts dislike endless re-litigation even where it is a litigant in person claiming it is unjust for them to suffer due to a procedural error. For a large company with a legal dept. and who has retained counsel : they’ve had their second bite of the cherry.

Re: Default Judgement Against Securitas Security Services

This is what I think as well.

The trouble at the moment is that there has been a lot of bad mouthing going of by the solicitors .
I will name and shame them.
They are Quality Solicitors Davidsons of 254 Lichfield Road Four Oaks. Sutton Coldfield B74 2UH.

If I was to release the email I received last.
You will get an idea of what sort of clowns they are and how intimidating they are.
I would scrub various details and so on.
I do not know how many other people this has happened to.

I hate bailiffs. Let me know if you have had a problem with them. I am sure i could upset them.
I now have experience with Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited and won in court against them 01/2018

Their obligation is to represent their client as best they can.
Do you know if they are at fault, their client is, or both.
You won’t be able to ask them (well, you can ask but due to client confidentiality they won’t answer!).

Yet, even if they have sent you letters / mails you disagree with, they may just have been doing the best they could for their client (it isn’t unheard of for clients to put their solicitor in a bad spot and insisting they send you letters trying to get you to back down...... they then have to do so provided they don’t actually contravene the SRA’s rules).
Do the letters breach the SRA code of conduct?.

Re: Default Judgement Against Securitas Security Services

I believe what they were after is trying to intimidate and get the claimant to back out and open the way for a liable claim. This way their squeaky clean image remains and they can continue working as they want. I believe this is the only case that has been highlighted in public and has followed from the start to the end. At the moment this is coming up in google as the top link if searched for as Security Security Services.

It is not libel if the information is a true reflection of what has taken place. All employees and customers of any business are allowed to discuss their dealings with a business i.e it is fair comment on their interactions with the business. If the information was untrue and malicious that would be a different matter.

Libel is a very high fence to clear, even if what is written is untrue it is then down to whether it was done or said in good faith, was justifable as fair comment and was damaging (public domain issues)

I have been threatened with libel actions twice, once when I posted comments about a private tender for services put put to contract by my employer. The company involved didnt like it being publicised but I had a legitimate interest as a union rep and my members jobs were affected so legitimate interest/fair comment ( basically co taking over service didnt want competitors to know and was hoping employer would slap me about a bit to keep it quiet but they didnt)

Second time was when I gave a story to a journalist about conflicts of interest for a director of a development co and his seat on a trust whose land was about to be developed, probably by his co.

He threatened legal action against journo who refused to reveal his source but I told him to say it was me and then used fair comment argument. The dveloper/trustee then declared an interest and the project didnt go ahead anyway for other reasons so again not really actionable.

The journalist was later jailed for contempt of court in another famous case when he refused to name his sources when he published a story in a trade journal about a company's shenanigans. Ultimately the court decided it wasnt libel but poor old Bill became a cause celebre for his refusal to dob in the source

Re: Default Judgement Against Securitas Security Services

I don't think solicitors actually know the meaning of libel. Do they do it on thier own backs or do they do it on their clients say so ? I will post a copy of the email when I get a chance later over the weekend

I suspect solicitors do know the meaning of libel, and all about the Defamation Act 2013, too.

That won’t stop them acting on their clients instruction to “send them a strongly worded letter, threatening action”, if (when they remind the client : if it is truth / reasonably and honestly held belief, an action for defamation won’t succeed, do you still want us to send the threat of a claim?), the client still insists ......

Before DJ xxxxxx sitting at xxxxxx Court.
Upon the court being informed that the claim and associated costs have been paid in full (£2,086.92) without prejudice to liability; and today's final hearing therefore proceeding solely on the defendants counterclaim for the return of that money.
Further the defendant having failed to file and serve its evidence in accordance with previous orders and the rules.

IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. COUNTERCLAIM BE STRUCK OUT.
Dated 29 January 2018

Re: Default Judgement Against Securitas Security Services

Final one on this. Three people have had their jobs terminated as a direct result of this thread. This includes 2 Op supports and one manager. Not a result we were after but still a result.

I hate bailiffs. Let me know if you have had a problem with them. I am sure i could upset them.
I now have experience with Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited and won in court against them 01/2018

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM HITTING 'REPLY WITH QUOTE' IF YOU ARE SIMPLY REPLYING TO THE LAST POST IN A THREAD..JUST TYPE!!
it makes a thread twice as long to scroll through..save data download times and costs

If you want advice please PM me a link to your thread. PM advice is not allowed!!